Was Christ based on Krishna?

[Guest guest]

 

I am not going to quarrel with people about this.

 

Yes it is true that Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada glofied Jesus in many ways.

 

 

 

I respect Muralidhar for this response. Certain individuals have a tendency, in the name of faith in their guru, to respond with heavy, knee-jerk responses against anyone who does not believe as they do. I don't personally see any fault in what Muralidhar has written. He explained his posting, then further agreed that Jesus was a saintly person, probably even a shaktyavesha avatar (but not a full avatar of Krishna). What is it exactly you people want from him?

 

For too long this forum has served as a place for bullies to blast anyone and everyone who does not see things in exactly the same way as they do. If one I is not dotted or one T is not crossed, they look for reasons to pick a fight.

 

I'm glad there are some devotees who still manage to stay calm in spite of this.

 

As an aside, I can't help but note a very disturbing trend. In ISKCON, there is great friendship and admiration for Christians and Christianity despite the great disparity between standards of sadhana and religious doctrine. But conversations with other branches of the Gaudiya Vaishnava family are always rocky, despite the comparatively fewer differences. Muralidhar is being victimized here because he is not a direct disciplic descendent of A.C. Bhaktivedanta. And this is happening even from individuals who have previously professed the need for respecting other guru's disciples, other religions, not being fanatical, etc.

 

Unbelieveable

[MuralidharDas 0]

Hi Pritaa,

 

 

<hr><blockquote>

Chaitanya Charitamrta, Chapter Fourteen,

TEXT 169

 

tumi ye kahile, pandita, sei satya haya

adhunika amara sastra, vicara-saha naya

 

TRANSLATION

The Kazi said:

"My dear Nimai Pandita, what You have said is all true. Our scriptures have developed only recently, and they are certainly not logical and philosophical.

 

PURPORT

The sastras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore although they have their arguments and reasonings, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable.</blockquote>

<hr>

 

[Priitaa 0]

I haven't got time at the moment to give the lengthy response I would like to give, but will try to clear up a few points.

 

First, I was not trying to offend you Murlidhara. Not trying to say you are egotistical. I was just commenting first in relationship to some of the other posts on the topic; also presenting facts as I know them -- not trying to insult you. Actually, I did not mind that you read these other books, I was simply pointing out that is not what our instruction has been. Tho I suppose my comment about 'what did you expect' may have enticed a somewhat stronger reaction from you, but again, that was mostly related to other posts.

 

Secondly, I was not giving a knee-jerk reaction. I seldom do. Anyone who knows me, knows that. I spoke what I believe and have read. If some unbelievable anonymous poster wants to say I am fanatic in the name of guru or religion because I want to follow the instruction of "my" guru, so be it. That does not make it so. Merley I was explaining Prabhupada's instruction on this topic. They don't have to agree and can even politely disagree, but to lash out personally at me, bully me, then tell me to calm down, well, I suggest they practice what they preach. Also to not read more into my posts then I intended. Anything can be said when said nicely.

 

 

[theist 1]

Muralidhar das,

 

In your original post you stated your view and then asked for comments.

 

I gave you my comments, and mentioned I thought your idea made no sense.

 

I then offered something from Christ on the topic.

 

You were not convinced.

 

I posted a quote from Prabhupada stating Jesus was a Krsna incarnation.

 

You asked what kind of incarnation .

 

I answered Shaktyavesa and suggested that you run a search on vedabase if you had one to confirm my statement. There are hundreds. Just recently there was thread where many were posted and I don't feel like doing it again.

 

I was thinking that so many statements from Prabhupada might convince you.

 

You replied that you didn't want to argue. That's understandable but I never thought there was an arguement to begin with. A difference of opinion is not an arguement to me.

 

Now nameless guest accuses us of victimizing you. That is an absurdity and I hope you didn't feel that way.

 

As far as your quote from Mahaprabhu on the Koran I can only say we are talking about the person Lord Jesus Christ and not the Koran or the Bible.

 

Anyway I know that if Prabhupada's quotes don't convince anyone here I surely have no need to try.

 

No hard feelings on my side.

 

Hare Krsna

[gHari 0]

I saw immediately that this post was a humorous rebuttal to the silly "Is Krsna Christ" thread.

 

Jesus like the mahamantra is a pudding thing. Some of us have eaten that pudding and know its taste, others haven't. But we should not maintain opinions based on intellect about pudding; its yumminess is beyond the purview of the intellect.

 

Of course, many 'Christians' appear like great demons when they speak of Krsna. One might indeed question the value of Jesus given their behaviour, but they are simply licking the outside of the bottle of the Jesus pudding. One should not infer anything from such offensive hogs, they know only the taste of stool.

[stonehearted 0]

This may be the first time I've looked at this thread because when I saw the title I figured Muralidhar intended it as a spoof of the other thread. Boy, we do get excited!

[Guest guest]

There is some evidence of a link between the character of Jesus Christ and Krsna. You may read the following links :

 

http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/godmen.html

 

http://www.africawithin.com/jgjackson/jgjackson_pagan_origins_of_the_christ_myth4.htm

 

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ4.htm

 

http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

 

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

 

 

[Guest guest]

Indeed

[gHari 0]

That 'godmen' thing was so bogus it was laughable. How do people like this exist? It's easy to see how someone who lies to himself so much, ends up an atheist. Atheism - the ultimate lie, the quintessence of stupidity, fostered by delusional arrogance.

[gHari 0]

No Acarya would condone such drivel. Guest, you are either totally insane or just playing games here. I think it quite impossible that two like-minded dull-minded half-witted 'Guests' could arrive here at the same time.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Golly, gHari, when I had a look at that Godmen site I suddenly remembered something Albert Einstein said:

 

Two things are infinite in size - the universe, and human stupidity.

 

-Murali

[Guest guest]

Arrogance is believing one has the monopoly of knowledge. You are expressing opinions without providing any basis or proof for your beliefs.

 

It is impossible to prove whether God exists or not. As to myself, I am very grateful that someone took the time to post the websites above and to dennounce religious lies.

 

You have the constitutional right to believe whatever you wish. Freedom of thought and religion are fundamental human rights.

 

However, nobody has the right to trespass upon the fundamental rights of others.

[Guest guest]

"Krishna of India

 

The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian messiah Krishna number in the hundreds, particularly when the early Christian texts now considered apocrypha are factored in. It should be noted that a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was “Christna,” which reveals its relation to “Christ.” Also, in Bengali, Krishna is reputedly “Christos,” which is the same as the Greek for “Christ” and which the soldiers of Alexander the Great called Krishna. It should be further noted that, as with Jesus, Buddha and Osiris, many people have believed and continue to believe in a historical Krishna. The following is a partial list of the correspondences between Jesus and Krishna:

--Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki (“Divine One”) on December 25.

--His earthly father was a carpenter, who was off in the city paying tax while Krishna was born.

--His birth was signaled by a star in the east and attended by angels and shepherds, at which time he was presented with spices.

--The heavenly hosts danced and sang at his birth.

--He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.

--Krishna was anointed on the head with oil by a woman whom he healed.

--He is depicted as having his foot on the head of a serpent.

--He worked miracles and wonders, raising the dead and healing lepers, the deaf and the blind.

--Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love, and he “lived poor and he loved the poor.”

--He castigated the clergy, charging them with “ambition and hypocrisy . . . Tradition says he fell victim to their vengeance.”

--Krishna’s “beloved disciple” was Arjuina or Ar-jouan (Jouhn).

--He was transfigured in front of his disciples.

--He gave his disciples the ability to work miracles.

--His path was “strewn with branches.”

--In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.

--Krishna was killed around the age of 30, and the sun darkened at his death.

--He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven “in the sight of all men.”

--He was depicted on a cross with nail-holes in his feet, as well as having a heart emblem on his clothing.

--Krishna is the “lion of the tribe of Saki.”

--He was called the “Shepherd of God” and considered the “Redeemer,” “Firstborn,” “Sin-Bearer,” “Liberator,” “Universal Word.”

--He was deemed the “Son of God” and “our Lord and Savior,” who came to earth to die for man’s salvation.

--He was the second person of the Trinity.

--His disciples purportedly bestowed upon him the title “Jezeus,” or “Jeseus,” meaning “pure essence.”

--Krishna is to return to judge the dead, riding on a white horse, and to do battle with the “Prince of Evil,” who will desolate the earth."

 

 

Uh, this is not the Krishna I'm familiar with. Not even close. To me, it seems like the author was really stretching and even went on to pervert facts about Krishna to make him seem more like Christ.

 

[krsna 3]

Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead

"krsnas tu bhagavan svayam"

Krishna predates Christ

Therefore it is Christ who is the one who is copied from Lord Sri Krishna.

[gHari 0]

But guest, why read such nonsense when it is all foolish lies? There is hardly a fact in it. One would do well not to base any of their opinions on silly cheating like we find here.

 

This is the work of a humorous school kid, at best. Even the psychotic anti-religionist will at least not be so obvious in his exaggerations and lies while displaying some semblance of integrity. They at least try to present something seemingly plausible, since it is their minds that they claim to worship. But these articles are simply cheating from word one, mere child's play, a waste of time and an insult to any even moderately informed reader. Don't get played for chump, guest.

 

Go ahead and be an agnostic (can't prove it one way or other type guy), but don't do so out of stupidity because of accepting nonsense like these webpages offer. At least be honest with yourself. This is life's most important and deepest most intimate question. Pay it the due it deserves and you deserve.

[Guest guest]

"Chaitanya Charitamrta, Chapter Fourteen,

TEXT 169

 

tumi ye kahile, pandita, sei satya haya

adhunika amara sastra, vicara-saha naya

 

TRANSLATION

The Kazi said:

"My dear Nimai Pandita, what You have said is all true. Our scriptures have developed only recently, and they are certainly not logical and philosophical.

 

PURPORT

The sastras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore although they have their arguments and reasonings, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable."

 

"If you ever get a chance to read what Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur said in Sri Tattva Viveka about the Bible, Adam and Eve, Crucifiction of Christ, etc, it may give another perspective on this topic."

******************************************************************************

 

 

Prabhupada: If you think that “I shall read scriptures and I shall understand God,” no, that is also not possible. srutayo vibhinnah. Scriptures are also different. Because scriptures are made according to time, circumstances, people. Just like Bible. Bible Lord Jesus Christ preached in the desert, Jerusalem. Or where it is? People who were not so advanced. Therefore his first instruction is “Thou shall not kill.” That means they were very much engaged in killing affairs; otherwise, why is this instruction? And actually, it so happened that they killed Jesus Christ. So that society was not very enlightened society. So a scripture for a society which is not very enlightened and a scripture for a society which is very enlightened must be different. Just like a dictionary. For the schoolboy, a pocket dictionary. And for a college student, international, big dictionary. Both of them are dictionaries. But the small pocket dictionary is not equal to the big dictionary. Because it is different made for different classes of men. So scriptures are made according to different classes of men ~Lecture September 23, 1969~

 

 

Pancadravida: ...that these Old and New Testament and Koran, they are the sastras of the (sic:) yauvanas. They are not the same as the Vedic sastras. They are not as... They are not bona fide like that.

 

Prabhupada: Yes.

 

Pancadravida: Does this mean they are not authentic or... How did they come here?

 

Prabhupada: Who?

 

Pancadravida: These Bible and Koran, how did they get here? They were just inventions or what?

 

Prabhupada: Convention means they are partially good for the time being, that’s all. They are not eternally... Just like in the Bible it is said, “Thou shalt not kill.” (chuckles) But this is not, does not come within the category of eternal religion. People were so corrupted that they were forbidden, “No, don’t do this.” “Thou shalt not covet,” a little moral instruction. That also, they could not follow. There is no religion. And little God consciousness, “There is God, kingdom of God,” little idea for the persons who could understand. Otherwise, do you think that if somebody says, “Thou shalt not kill,” is that any religious principle? It is ordinary thing. Where is the question of God? ~Morning Walk April 20, 1974~

 

Prabhupada: So on the principle that God is Supreme, God is Great, I do not think there is any difference of opinion between us and the Christians. But the Vedic literatures being older and disseminated by many, many superior acaryas we can find out how God is great, how the creation took place one after another. These details are not found in any other scriptures in the world ~Letter to Tosana Krsna, June 23 1970~

 

Christian: Can you explain the Vaisnava viewpoint of Christianity?

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Christianity is incomplete Vaisnavism; not fullfledged, but the basis of devotional theism. We find the principle of "Die to live" there to a certain extent, at least physically. The Christians say that the ideal shown by Jesus is self-sacrifice. In our consideration, however, that is not fullfledged theism, but only the basis.It is an unclear, vague conception of Godhead: "We are for Him." But how much? And in what shape, in what attitude? All these things are unexplained and unclear in Christianity. Everything is hazy, as if seen from far off. It does not take any proper shape. The cover is not fully removed, allowing us to come face to face with the object of our service. The conception of service to God is there, and a strong impetus to attain that, so the foundation is good, but the structure over the foundation is unclear, vague, and imperfect.

 

[...]

 

Only a general idea of our relationship with God is given there, but when we have to define in detail the characteristics of God, and in which relationships to approach Him, Christianity gives us only a hazy idea.

 

Once some Christian priests told our guru maharaja that madhurya rasa (conjugal relationship with God) is also found within Christianity. In the middle ages, there was a fashion amongst the Christians to consider Christ as a bridegroom, and some parable is also given where Lord Jesus Christ is considered as a bridegroom. So, they said that madhurya rasa, the consort relationship, is also found within Christianity. Prabhupada told them, "That is with His Son, with His devotee; not with God." Son means guru, the deliverer.

 

[...]

 

To conceive of God as our Father is an incomplete understanding, for parents are also servitors. He must be in the center; not in any extremity of the whole...I am speaking about Jesus, who has given the ideals of Christianity. I am speaking about the principles of Jesus. He has given some understanding by installments, but not full knowledge. We agree about the strong foundation of theism. Jesus was crucified because he said, "Everything belongs to my Father. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is His." So, the foundation is very good; it is laudable, but that is only the first installment of the theistic conception.

 

[...]

 

We must cross the threshold given by Jesus. He has declared, "Die to live." The Lord's company is so valuable to us that we must risk everything for Him. This material achievement is nothing; it is all poison. We must have no attraction for it. We must be ready to leave everything, all our material prospects and aspirations, including our body, for Him. God is great. But what is His greatness? What is my position? How can I engage myself in His service twenty-four hours a day? Here, Jesus is silent.

 

We receive no specific program from the Christians at this stage, so Vaisnavism comes to our heart's relief, to satisfy our inner necessity, whatever it may be. Our inner thirst will be quenched there. ~The Search For Sri Krsna

Reality The Beautiful~

[Guest guest]

you people are crazy. jesus christ was and is to come again and the only way to heaven is through jesus.

[Guest guest]

but you will have to come back to earth and hell afterwards. heaven is still in the material universe.

 

my dear friend do not worry though we can teach you how attain the spiritual world outside the material universe, were there is eternaly our original blissful condition.

 

hare krishna

[muralidhar_das 0]

It's funny to see that this thread has been resurected after three years. Maybe there is some truth to the doctrine that physical bodies get resurrected and the spirit that lay waiting in the ground comes back to life. Zombies.....

 

But seriously,

the full story with this thread is that someone came to this site and started a thread titled "Was Krishna Based On Christ". So I posted this thread as a response.

 

Sri Krishna the son of Devaki of the Yadava clan is mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad, which was written centuries before the birth of Buddha (650 BC), according to Encyclopaedia Brittanica. So the suggestion that Krishna is based on Christ is simpy ridiculous.